Also See

Friday, January 24, 2014

Reason and Religion in 17th Century England

Sarah Mortimer, Reason
and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Hardcover. vii + 264pp.

Reviewed by
Ryan M. McGraw

Students of seventeenth-century English theology
must grapple with the reality and the charge of Socinianism upon English
society. Even though Socinianism is best known for denying the Trinity, it
became a seventeenth-century catch-word for any teaching that elevated reason
over fundamental articles of the faith. This is the first major work treating
English Socinianism in over fifty years. Mortimer’s book stands out from its
predecessors by showing the positive uses of Socinian theories on reason,
natural law, and civil government in seventeenth-century England. This provides
an intriguing contribution to the historical landscape of English theology.

Chapter 1 shows the rise and development of Socinianism.
She argues that Socinianism represented a shift in the role of reason in establishing
theological positions and a tendency to place Christian ethics above and even,
at times, contrary to natural law. Chapter 2 expands this picture by
demonstrating the different reactions of continental and English churches to
Socinianism. Partly due to the fact that Arminius’ successor at the University
of Leiden, Conrad Vorstius, promoted Socinian ideas, the Dutch often lumped
Socinianism and Arminianism together. However, in early seventeenth-century England
dissociated them more starkly. This was largely due to the Arminianizing
tendencies of the English Church at the time. Chapter 3 expands the English
context by showing the circulation of Socinian ideas through informal studies
at the Great Tew estate of Lord Falkland (known as the Great Tew Circle). This
included well-known figures such as William Chillingworth and Edward Hyde, who
later became the infamous Lord Clarendon. Chapter 4 illustrates the uses of
Socinian rejections of self-defense to argue against resistance to monarchs,
which Royalists made good use of during the English Civil War. Particularly
interesting in this connection is Francis Cheynell’s deep concern over Socinian
political influences on English society (109-113, 126). Cheynell was a member
of the Westminster Assembly whose writings on the Trinity have recently received
increased attention. Mortimer highlights a hitherto neglected aspect of his
thought.

Chapter 5 depicts the use of Socinian ideas on
reason and natural law to defend episcopacy. Chapter 6 introduces attacks on
the Trinity in England. This includes the oft neglected observation that
Remonstrant theologians began to deny that the Trinity was an essential
doctrine of the faith (152). This led to problems when the Cromwellian
settlement tried to form a list of fundamental doctrines of the faith. Chapter 7
treats views on toleration with special reference to John Owen (194-204).
Chapter 8 unfolds how Socinian views of nature and religion gained prominence
in the 1650’s. Most of this chapter addresses Owen’s lengthy refutation of John
Biddle and Hugo Grotius. The concluding chapter summarizes Socinian contributions
to English theology in terms of the centrality of reason over against natural
law and the importance of individual freedom (240).

Mortimer provides valuable historical insight into
how Socinians altered Protestant defenses of the authority of Scripture. These
alterations are more akin to modern post-Enlightenment apologetic views than to
seventeenth-century Reformed assumptions. Faustus Socinus sought to prove the
authority of Scripture through historical investigation in the way that one
would approach any other historical source (18). This was a radical idea at the
time, since it potentially mitigated the absolute authority of Scripture. The
Great Tew Circle followed Grotius’ appropriation of these arguments under the
assumption that “faith was similar to other branches of human knowledge” (70). These
people treated faith as assent to probable propositions based on probable
arguments. Though Mortimer does not mention the fact, this approach stands in
stark contrast to Owen’s Reason of Faith,
where he argued that faith cannot rest on probable arguments but only on divine
testimony. To complicate matters, Socinians allowed for conflict – or at least
non-correspondence – between the laws of nature and revealed religion (33).
These features pose a greater threat to the historic Protestant view of the
certainty of divine revelation than many post-Enlightenment Reformed thinkers
have recognized. In this connection, Mortimer notes that Socinian ideas “still
appeal today” (240).

The author displays great mastery of
Socinian-influenced sources. However, she demonstrates a weak grasp of Reformed
theology. For instance, she claims that Chillingworth contradicted “the
standard Protestant interpretation” of denying ourselves and following Christ
by teaching “that Christ’s words must be understood as commands or laws which
demanded strict obedience from his followers” (80). Mortimer appears to mistake
Chllingworth’s understanding of “the standard Protestant interpretation” with
the reality. Later she adds, “Chillingworth had begun to move away from
Reformed Christianity, suggesting that Christ demanded from his followers a
sincere attempt to live according to his laws” (89). However, the “standard
Protestant interpretation” included strict obedience in following Christ. The
difference between the Socinian and Protestant position was the ground on which
obedience rested. Reformed theologians rooted obedience in union with Christ.
Chillingworth’s Socinianized version of self-denial rooted obedience in moral
fortitude and free-will. Mortimer gives the impression that all Protestants
were theological antinomians. Her later claim that both the Reformed and
Arminians believed that “Christ was a redeemer rather than a teacher” (122) is
somewhat astonishing. Both groups believed that Christ was a prophet as well as
a priest and a king, even though they stressed his role as teacher differently
than Socinians did. No historian can master all of the relevant sources, but this
is a serious deficiency in Mortimer’s work. Rather than searching the primary
sources of Reformed theology, she appears to accept Socinian caricatures of it
at face value.

This volume is an important
contribution to a small, but growing body of material on seventeenth-century
Trinitarian theology. Its primary value consists in unfolding the story of
anti-Trinitarians in their English context.

The preceding review was first published in the Mid-America Journal of Theology (2013).
Used by permission.